From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9839 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 16:24:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 9825 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 16:24:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:24:11 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so1708063fga.0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.180.17 with SMTP id c17mr9359337buf.4.1204043048164; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.162.12 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0802260824y2c87f942sa925149de3c38cef@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:39:00 -0000 From: "Jim Blandy" To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: testsuite: Of all the timeouts provided always select the largest Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8f2776cb0802260755q7c48c3d9me8d35807c3d35ae7@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 96042b8954da78e8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > All the callers would have to be updated and unfortunately the dependency > may not necessarily be linear. For example for a fast target accessed > through a slow port the factor for transferring data through, such as > downloading a program image, would have to be higher than for a slow > target accessed through a fast port. Contrariwise the factor applied to > actions involving execution on the respective systems. In general I do > agree it is a good idea, but that is a lot of work that best be well > thought before commencing. All true, except for the "all callers" part, I think: couldn't gdb_expect recognize a '-timeout-factor' flag as its first argument? Then we could update call sites as we came across them. It's certainly not linear, but linear is better than constant, surely. For the sake of setting timeouts, we only need an upper bound.